The present invention relates to the art of body bags or pouches and more specifically to the safe storage and transportation of bodies and remains, or forensic samples that have been or are suspected to have been contaminated with military chemical and biological warfare agents, radiological hazards, and/or toxic industrial chemicals (TICS) and materials (TIMS). Of particular novelty, the present invention addresses the unique need for military and disaster relief personnel to safely handle and transport such contaminated remains for extended periods of time and/or under hypobaric conditions as occur during transport from the battlefield.
The present invention also may be used to transport equipment and other related items that are suspected as being contaminated.
The expanding threat of world terrorism and chemical/biological weaponization by third world and developing nations has heightened international awareness for the need for highly specialized protective devices and equipment. While significant effort has been placed on developing chemically resistant clothing, protective covers and shelters, air monitoring devices, and release plume modeling simulation, little effort has been placed on casualty care, and more specifically the management of contaminated bodies, remains, equipment, and the like, especially those casualties resulting on the battlefield.
While an array of traditional body bags exist, these devices have remained essentially unchanged and theoretically are designed to contain normal bodily fluids and gases resulting from natural decay and decomposition. Even with the onslaught of communicable diseases such as HIV and Ebola, the state-of-the-art body bag has remained essentially unchanged since its first use.
The unique hazards involved with battle ground casualties and more recently those resulting during terrorist activities, is the potential inclusion of chemical, radiological, and biological contamination along with the ever present pathogenic hazards and traditional by products of human decay and decomposition. While traditional body bags can be designed to offer varying degrees of “liquid-proofness”, traditional fabrics and closures (i.e., zipper and two track or press-to-close Zip-Lock™-type closures) fail to offer the necessary chemical resistance for the new level of challenges. Furthermore, complications exist in bags that claim to be gas-tight since dangerous over-pressurization can occur during decomposition and in hypobaric conditions occurring during transportation (a common practice, especially in military situations). Typical military practice in transporting remains of fallen soldiers is to transport such remains in the non-pressurized cargo areas of aircraft. It should be obvious that a truly gas-tight body bag that has been filled and closed while on the ground at essentially atmospheric pressure, will experience sever over-pressurization when transported at hypobaric conditions as will occur during flight (i.e., high altitude). Severe over-pressurization can lead to leakage and under the most severe conditions, full catastrophic failure. Failure or leakage of a bag holding contaminated remains could obviously result in contamination of the cargo vessel, other equipment, etc. and presents a risk to others onboard as well as individuals involved with off-loading after landing.
Conventional body bags used by civilian and military medical, mortuary, and investigative personnel are similar in materials of construction, design, seaming, and closures. These items offer satisfactory performance under only a limited number of scenarios. The added chemical and physical threats involved with battle ground and terrorist disaster response severely challenge the performance limitations of modern body bags. Some of the early work in the subject area was conducted by Dr. Thomas Holmes in 1863. Holmes patented an improved receptacle for dead bodies (U.S. Pat. No. 39,291, the contents of which are incorporated herein by reference) wherein he configured an oval-shaped elastic receptacle having a funnel-shaped top into which is placed a badly wounded body. The receptacle is tied around the top and a cork is inserted in the opening to create an “air-tight” closure. Holmes specifies the use of an Indian-rubber or similar air-tight elastic cloth. While rudimentary in design and materials, Holmes does begin to identify the critical attributes of a readily field deployable, gas-tight, chemically-resistant remains pouch. Carl Barnes discloses a transportation-receptacle for dead human bodies in his patent of 1909 (U.S. Pat. No. 924,029, the contents of which are incorporated herein by reference). Barnes describes a coffin-like device for transporting remains that comprises a receptacle fabricated from rubber or other similar “imperforate” material including a multi-layer overlapping closure secured with buttons. While addressing the hazards of the day (i.e., blood and other bodily fluids) these approaches are obviously insufficient for the present day need for a hypobaric transportable highly chemically resistance remains pouch.
Modern body bags as available through Burney Products, Knight Systems Inc., Mopec, Lightning Powder Company, Inc., Chief Supply, ADI Medical, and others, are commonly categorized as either lightweight/standard duty or heavy duty. Typical materials of construction include polyethylene sheeting, polyethylene laminates to woven or nonwoven support fabrics, or varying weights of supported and unsupported polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and/or polyurethane. Predominately rectangular in shape, seaming is accomplished via traditional needle and thread sewing, impulse welding, radio frequency welding, or other similar thermal seaming techniques. These body bags are also typically fitted with curved zipper or zip-lock™-type closures located on either the side or top of the bag. Even the common DOD human remains pouch, as described under National Stocking Number NSN: 9930-01-331-6244 is constructed of vinyl and includes a standard cloth zipper, which has little utility when handling contaminated remains.
Salam (U.S. Pat. No. 6,004,034) and Engerfalk (U.S. Pat. No. Des. 409,817) the contents of which are incorporated herein by reference, have attempted to simplify the design and construction of a standard body bag to reduce cost. While functional for traditional use, the products described above have proved impractical for use under the high hazard scenarios described by the subject patent.
Others have attempted to address the need for a chemically resistant, odor-proof remains bag for use during military and disaster events. Knight (U.S. Pat. No. 4,790,051, the contents of which are incorporated herein by reference), discloses an odor-proof disaster pouch constructed of a strong, flexible, waterproof material for transporting dead human bodies. Knight describes a multi-walled bag comprising an inner liner and an outer liner which are constructed of vinyl. Closure of the devices is accomplished using both traditional zippers and rib-in-groove (i.e., Zip-lock type) devices. Knight also describes a standard reinforcing/weight supporting system of interconnected straps secured to the under side of the bag to facilitate handling the bag. Knights use of a vinyl base material and traditional zipper and zip-lock type closures results in nothing more than a bag in a bag approach. While this body bag could be considered “liquid-proof”, the vinyl-based primary material offers limited chemical resistance, and the closure system could not prevent the leakage of potentially dangerous contaminates and byproducts of decay and decomposition during long-term storage or hypobaric transport. Long-term storage of the Knight bag is also of concern as those skilled in the art know that rib-in-grove closures are best suited for flat installation, and often fail when folded for extended periods of time due to the “set” induced in the groove. Furthermore, neither traditional zipper nor zip-lock type closures are designed for hypobaric conditions and would surely fail while at altitude.
McWilliams (U.S. Pat. No. 5,659,933, the contents of which are incorporated herein by reference) better addresses the chemical resistant needs of a contaminated remains pouch than does Knight or others in his description of an odor-proof sealable container for bodily remains. McWilliams describes a tubular shaped device open on both ends, and constructed of a flexible multi-layered laminate including at least two polymeric sheets sandwiched around a metal foil-layer. Human remains are inserted into one end of the bag, and the ends are sealed using common heat sealing techniques or through the use of adhesives. The bag does not contain any openable closures, but does include a self-sealing valve to allow the extraction of decomposition gases and/or the insertion of inert gases that can extend non-refrigerated storage of the remains.
While McWilliams begins to address the chemically resistive needs of a contaminated remains bag, his approach is impractical for battlefield or disaster use for several reasons. Insertion of complete bodies and remains into the tubular device is not only difficult but can easily and most likely contaminate the seam interface on one or both ends. Since McWilliams relies on either a hermetic or adhesive seal being created on each end of his bag, the presence of blood, bodily fluids, or other debris in the seal area after insertion of the remains will drastically impact the likelihood of achieving a good seal, thus leading to leakage and failure of the bag. The present invention overcomes this limitation by offering an openable remains pouch that includes a valving system that controls the release of any toxic gases from the bag, but also functions as an in-process control and is used during production to quality check the integrity of all seams in the remains pouch. McWilliams' use of a self-sealing valve may have application at atmospheric conditions, but will be easily overcome when placed under the high internal pressure that occurs during hypobaric flight. One final significant shortcoming of the McWilliams approach is its lack of field deployability. In this regard, McWilliams fails to disclose or suggest a mechanism whereby the remains bag can be easily and safely drug as in typical military or disaster-type situations or carried as in more common medical/mortuary settings.
Other work either has been conducted or is still in process that addresses a related but different need when catering the specialized conditions of caring for chemically contaminated patients. Sustaining the life of a contaminated patient is quite different and requires a much different philosophy than does containing contaminates present on deceased victims. Pashal, Jr. et. al (U.S. Pat. No. 6,418,932 B2), Koria (U.S. Pat. No. 5,342,121), Hood et. al, (U.S. Pat. No. 5,975,081), Reichman et. al., (U.S. Pat. No. 6,461,290 B1), Gauger et. al., (U.S. Pat. No. 6,321,764 B1), Chang (U.S. Pat. No. 5,620,407), Akers et. al, (U.S. Pat. No. 4,485,490), all of which are incorporated herein by reference, as well as others have addressed controlling hazardous exposure of care takers to contaminated patients. These approaches vary in their complexity and level of sophistication, but none are economical enough or easily deployable for use when handling contaminated remains and the like.
It should be obvious from the discussion above that an immediate needs exists for a field deployable contaminated remains pouch that offers high chemical resistance, good physical durability, allows for ready insertion of and access to remains, can be manipulated by one or more handlers, is so designed to prevent the undesirable build-up of toxic vapors and gases under both atmospheric and hypobaric conditions, and is constructed in such a way so as to allow in-production quality assurance testing to ensure the gas-tight integrity of the complete final unit.